Jews in the Cathedral: A Response to Curtis Yarvin

8388 words

Having read deeply into the Jewish Question for almost 20 years, I’m always fascinated by novel objections to anti-Semitism. This was the case when I was prompted to turn to the writings of Curtis “Mencius Moldbug” Yarvin by a recent Keith Woods video (“Unqualified Reservations on Moldbug”). I think I first heard about Yarvin around 8 years ago, but there never seemed to be a “hook” sufficient for me to want to read his work. It was only with the Woods video, and an interesting video response to the Woods post from the academic YouTuber “The Distributist,” that I learned that Yarvin had at some point discussed the Jewish Question, or at least his personal stance on anti-Semitism. It was finally time for me to bite. For the past few weeks, I’ve been giving serious consideration to Yarvin’s short 2007 essay “Why I am not an anti-Semite,” as well as many of his other essays.

Yarvin, probably the foremost thinker of the “Neoreactionary movement,” is in my opinion a talented and generally thoughtful writer. We seem to share a great interest in the writings of Thomas Carlyle, and while I disagree with what I perceive to be Yarvin’s glossing over of Carlyle’s old-form socialist (in a good sense) tendencies with the implication that they were a kind of youthful phase he imbibed from friends and later outgrew,[1] I think we’d have a mutually enjoyable discussion on the subject of the “Sage of Chelsea.” My aim in this essay, however, is not to explore Yarvin’s writings in general, or to critique or otherwise examine the ideas behind the Neoreactionary movement. Quite frankly, there are many people better qualified and well-read in some of these ideas than I am, or ever will be. Instead, since my work is concerned primarily with the history of anti-Semitism, I want to focus specifically on “Why I am not an anti-Semite,” and to tease out and highlight some of its problems.

I have to confess to hesitating in writing this essay for a few reasons. The first is that the Yarvin piece dates from 2007, rendering it 13 years old at this point. How accurately it can be said to reflect Yarvin’s current ideas about anti-Semitism is therefore less than clear. Since he hasn’t issued any further statement on the matter, however, I am left to assume that it continues to represent his fundamental stance on the issue. My second reason is that Yarvin’s essay is, from my perspective, very short — a little over 1,600 words. As someone who regularly writes pieces around 4,000-8,000 words in length, I get the impression that Yarvin’s essay isn’t as complete or evidenced as it should, or could, be in terms of deserving a lengthy critique. I would certainly regard it as somewhat unfair if I’d simply written down a few thoughts, only for someone to invest several thousand more words in an effort to rubbish them. On this matter I can only say (and this is a compliment) that the relative novelty, even strangeness, of some of Yarvin’s comments, at least when compared with rather tired rebuttals to anti-Semitism from the likes of Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Žižek, and stereotypical Jewish apologists, are in fact deserving of a response, regardless of their brevity. Finally, a large part of my work over the last eight years has involved an attempt to offer an evidence-based apologetics for attitudes and beliefs, both historical and contemporary, that are regarded as anti-Semitic. A key part of this effort has been direct engagement with influential counter-narratives (see my recent long essay on the weaknesses of Middleman Minority Theory), and Yarvin’s renewed and ongoing influence in certain Rightist circles really does necessitate the production of a serious corrective view.[2]

“Why I am not an anti-Semite.”

Before critiquing the relevant arguments, we should begin first with a representative summary, using his own words, of the reasons why Yarvin is “not an anti-Semite.” Yarvin opens by explaining the origins of his essay. One of his over-arching ideas is that of “the Cathedral,” a term he coined to describe the elite network of academics, mainstream journalists, media moguls and capitalist oligarchs who preach the official “faith” of political correctness. Yarvin has often characterised “the Cathedral” as fundamentally Christian, especially Calvinist, in origin. In mid-2007, however, Yarvin was challenged on Twitter by “a fan of Kevin MacDonald” who asked why:

in my classification of American castes and conflicts, and my discussion of the belief system of the ruling Brahmin caste, I neglected Jewish influence. Specifically, as per MacDonald, I neglected the importance of Jewish intellectuals in the transition of the American establishment from 1920s style “super-protestantism” to postwar secularism and multiculturalism.

Yarvin’s essay is therefore an extended response to the Twitter user and, more broadly, to MacDonald and those of like mind.

Admirably, Yarvin opens his essay by laying a few cards on the table. He moves first to a definition of anti-Semitism, initially expressing admiration for Murray Rothbard’s definition of an anti-Semite as “anyone who proposes legal disabilities against Jews,” before adding that “by this definition the creed is basically extinct.” Yarvin then asserts that “anti-Semitic” is instead a useful “adjective for anyone with negative views on Jews as a whole.” Yarvin then notes that there are “many bad reasons not to be an anti-Semite. For example, anti-Semitism is unfashionable. If you want to be fashionable, don’t be an anti-Semite.” In fact, Yarvin goes so far as to say:

Anti-Semitism MacDonald style is probably the most courageous political belief anyone can hold in 2007—at least if you live anywhere west of Gaza City. This does not make it right, but it certainly does not give anyone who believes in “diversity” and “the environment” any right to sneer. I admire conviction, I despise cant. Anti-Semitism was cant in Munich in 1936, or in 1886 for that matter. It is cant in Tehran today. In California in 2007, it can be nothing but conviction.

Yarvin also makes it clear early in his essay that his father is Jewish. He explains, “This does not make me Jewish, but surely it makes me suspect, at least to some anti-Semites. But if this was my best reason for not being anti-Semitic, surely it would tend to confirm rather than refute MacDonald’s theories.” With these preliminaries out of the way, Yarvin proceeds to his reasons for rejecting anti-Semitism.

His first reason is that it isn’t at all obvious that Jews have an influential role in the direction of modern culture and politics. He flatly denies that they are in any way key players within “the Cathedral.” He writes:

Basically, the reason I neglected [Jewish influence] is that I don’t see it. But the point is certainly debatable. … The basic question is whether, as I argue, multiculturalism is best understood as a simple development of mainline Protestantism, or whether, as Anonymous believes, it should be seen as a Jewish-Protestant syncretism.

Yarvin rejects any such argument because it fails “the five tests of belief system classification,” something that he himself invented. Why exactly the rather simple and empirically testable idea that Jews are influential in culture and politics, and especially influential in multiculturalism, should be subjected to such a bespoke process is left unstated. Instead, Yarvin concedes that “many multiculturalists come from a Jewish background,” but counters with the assertion that “multiculturalism does not claim to be Jewish, and it’s pretty hard to get from massacring the Midianites to supporting open borders.” So, cutting out a lot of inconsequential and distracting filler, Yarvin’s first reason for rejecting the idea that Jewish influence has played a role within “the Cathedral” is that multiculturalism does not explicitly advertise itself as a tool of Jewish interests, and that ancient Jewish tales of racial genocides on their own soil don’t correspond well with hostile acts among non-Jews in the present.

Yarvin’s second objection to anti-Semitism is that be believes Jews do not act collectively. He argues that: “It’s not just that [MacDonald] believes in group selection—he believes in group action. I believe in human action. A group is not a person.” This is correct, but it’s not at all clear why such a strong distinction in terms needs to be made. I’m sure that Kevin MacDonald believes in individual human action also. The relevant point here is that a group is a collective of “human persons” who might have, or perceive themselves to have, individual interests “in common,” and who act according to those shared interests. In this sense, actions can be shared and steered by a group. Yarvin does accept that “Germans, Sioux or Irishmen” could:

act collectively in ways that favor Germans, Sioux or Irishmen. But in order for this to work, you need a cohesive belief system that rewards altruism on behalf of the group, and discourages “defecting” actions that would otherwise favor the individual. You need, in other words, an actual movement of ethnic nationalism.

Elaborating the point, Yarvin insists that Judaism, which he places in scare quotes, has this only “in theory.” He explains, “The whole Torah is a story of pure asabiya. The Jews get their asses kicked when they’re divided. They kick ass when they’re together.” In reality, Yarvin argues, Judaism is merely “an evolving system like any other,” and has abandoned this kind of system. Jewish ethnic nationalism is said to be found today only “among Zionists, Hasidim, etc., and certainly not among the Reform and socialist Jews who in the middle of the century became part of the American elite.” So Yarvin’s second reason is therefore that Jews in the American elite do not exhibit ethnic nationalism.

Yarvin’s third reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that Jewish behaviour in twentieth-century America is less like infiltration and more like assimilation. He argues that Jews did not necessarily compete against the WASP elite, but rather imitated them, mimicked their ideologies, and ultimately grafted themselves onto them:

Basically, the Jews (like my ancestors) who came to the US were people who wanted to get ahead—as individuals. They were done with the ghetto and the shtetl. They wanted money and power. Doesn’t everyone? It was only natural, therefore, that they would be drawn to the social patterns of the most prestigious class in their new country—the mainline “super-Protestants.” Like most converts, they adopted the most fashionable views of the Brahmin elite, which was already well down the road toward secularization and Unitarianism in the modern sense of the word. Indeed, for the earlier-arriving and (much as I hate to admit it, since my ancestors spoke “jargon”) more cultured German Jews, much of this process had already happened in Europe. Reform Judaism is pretty much Protestantism in all but name, as is of course “scientific” Marxist socialism. Whereas the Brahmins had no reason at all to adopt Jewish ways of thought. Nor do I see any way in which they did. The assimilation was entirely in the other direction.

So Yarvin’s third reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that any Jewish presence in “the Cathedral” is really the accidental result of early twentieth-century status-hungry Jewish migrants copying the attitudes and ambitions of American “super-Protestants.”

Finally, and this was the main focus of the Keith Woods video, Yarvin rejects anti-Semitism because it relies on “an enormous mass of corroborating evidence.” Yarvin rather strangely insists that:

A historian is not a mere collator of facts—he or she is creating an interpretation, much like a trial lawyer. The goal of history is to paint a picture of the past. The test, for any reader, is simply whether you find that picture convincing. Volume of evidence has not much to do with it. [emphasis added]

This last sentence, sure to stun every prosecutor and historian in the West, is the curious hill on which Mr Yarvin decides to die in the cause of rejecting anti-Semitism. Not only does he wish to die on it, but, it would seem, he wishes to do so in flamboyant fashion. Yarvin insists that masses of evidence in support of one’s case are in fact

a contrary indicator, because a lawyer with a weak case often feels the temptation to try to inundate the jury with a vast mass of detail. The strategy is essentially to demand that the reader either agree, or do the work of assembling the same detail into a counter-narrative. The canonical example is Johnnie Cochran’s great gambit, “if the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.”

For a canonical example this is extremely poor, and the analogy of the trial lawyer is itself awful. For a start, Johnnie Cochran’s defense of O.J. Simpson, and the entire context of the above quote, wasn’t based on “inundating the jury with a vast mass of detail,” but on finding very small weak points in the prosecution case that could be critiqued and exploited ruthlessly —  in this case, whether or not a single pair of gloves fit his client’s hands—hands that were swollen because Simpson stopped taking his arthritis medication. I also think that, rather than being the result of Johnnie Cochran’s often ridiculous defense strategy, O.J. Simpson walked free because the jury was majority Black — a canonical example of group action if there ever was one.

There is simply no methodological comparison to be made, despite the rhetorically attractive style of Yarvin’s presentation. Taken to its logical conclusion, Yarvin’s reasoning would suggest a poor level of evidence produced in support of a history would be a positive indicator of its quality — a theory I urge Mr Yarvin to test by submitting something un-referenced and poorly-backed to any respectable history journal. Alternatively, he can try a new career as a prosecutor while employing the same nonchalant dismissal of detail and see just how successful he can be. For now, however, we need only summarise that Yarvin’s fourth reason for rejecting anti-Semitism is that it boasts too much evidence.

Yarvin’s four reasons for rejecting anti-Semitism are therefore:

Multiculturalism does not explicitly advertise itself as Jewish.
Jews in the American elite do not exhibit ethnic nationalism
Jews merely copied the attitudes and ambitions of WASPs.
Anti-Semitism relies on an excess of evidence.

Response to Yarvin

In trying to gain my own understanding of Yarvin’s approach, I felt it necessary first to address his Jewishness. Other than his essay on anti-Semitism, I don’t find much in the way of a Jewish identification in his work. This corresponds well with findings that mixed-ethnicity children of Jewish fathers tend to have a much lower sense of Jewish identity than those with Jewish mothers:

A higher ratio of non-Jewish mothers is linked to a lower ratio of Jewish attachments within mixed-married homes. … Every systematic study of the Jewish community has shown that Jewish mothers provide more intensive and extensive connections to Jews and Judaism than do Jewish fathers in mixed-married households. Whether the measure is cultural, institutional, social, or religious, having a Jewish mother in the household (born or converted) makes the households far more likely to incorporate Jewish activities and values.[3]

Having a lower level of Jewish self-identification, of course, doesn’t translate automatically to having no identification with Jews at all. Yarvin’s assertion that having a Jewish father “does not make me Jewish,” probably needs to be problematised, not because Yarvin is Jewish, but because he is extremely likely to hold simple familial sympathies that lend themselves to a certain level of affection or affinity with Jews and Judaism. His employment of the analogy “If your father is Catholic, are you not allowed to be an anti-Catholic?” is also more than a little disingenuous given the rather obvious skirting of the issue that Jewishness is a matter of ethnicity as much as religion; of blood as much as belief. There’s an entirely different social and psychological texture between telling your Italian Catholic father you don’t believe in Christ and, for example, saying you’ve developed a distaste for Italians. For these reasons, Yarvin is correct in explaining that having a Jewish father “makes me suspect, at least to some anti-Semites.” It certainly makes him suspect to me. To borrow the notorious phrasing of Mel Gibson, Yarvin has a “dog in the fight,” even if it’s a little on the small side. Objecting to anti-Semitism, and offering arguments against it, is likely to bring some form of reward, even if in this case it’s limited purely to the psychological relief of absolving one’s paternal kin of certain charges. This understanding doesn’t help to unravel the specific arguments proposed by Yarvin, but it does assist with comprehending their origin, as well as helping to explain the resistant and strange quality they uniformly demonstrate.

Yarvin’s essay opens, very cleverly in my opinion, by mixing surface-level magnanimity with subtle salvos. For example, hidden beneath the early, somewhat patronising, praise of Kevin MacDonald is a barb left glaringly undeveloped for the rest of the essay. This, of course, is the denunciation of anti-Semitism as “cant in Munich in 1936, or in 1886 for that matter. It is cant in Tehran today.” Why exactly negative views on Jews as a whole should be regarded as cant (insincere, hypocritical, sanctimonious, quasi-fashionable speech) in any of these time periods or locations is left undeveloped. In fact, the essay is striking for its overwhelming neglect of history and the antagonistic advance of Zionism, seeming at times to proceed from the idea that the phenomenon began in 1950s America. There’s a clear implication in Yarvin’s phrasing that anti-Semitism was “easier,” or at least more fashionable in Germany (1886 and 1936), an argument that while true in one sense (it was more culturally pervasive) is misleading in its neglect of certain key interim periods. The Weimar Republic, for example, had a wide range of speech laws at least commensurate with those found in modern Europe, and more extensive than anything found in contemporary America. Anti-Semitic speech was prosecuted very regularly,[4] and many of the leading anti-Semitic ideologues of 1936, including the likes of Julius Streicher, had surely demonstrated “conviction” in their beliefs during their many terms in prison before 1933.[5]

Additionally, there are very few periods in history in which anti-Semitic arguments could be regarded as the product of insincere cant. The overwhelming trend has been that anti-Semitic speech has been a risky anti-elite activity, bringing the possibility of death or mutilation under certain medieval European monarchies[6], and the risk of severe social ostracism and imprisonment in more recent times, even for figures of significant public standing such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Henry Ford, and Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, all of whom underwent periods of extended personal angst or troubles over the impact that expounding anti-Jewish ideas could have on their lives.[7]

The question remains as to the tactical benefit of dismissing historical anti-Semitism, or contemporary middle eastern anti-Semitism as “cant.” Quite simply, one of the major problems facing Jewish apologists is the ubiquity and uniformity of anti-Semitism. Common coping strategies invariably involve attempts to artificially break up the historical pattern, either by suggesting that anti-Semitism “mutated” over time like a virus, that it was carried from one culture into another, that it has been more sane in some time periods than others, or, as Yarvin seems to suggest, that it is more of a fad in certain contexts. By opening his essay with a denunciation of “cant,” even glossed over with praise for MacDonald, Yarvin in fact signposts his work, consciously or not, as being related to the tradition of Jewish apologetics.

Yarvin’s first major argument for rejecting anti-Semitism is that he “doesn’t see” the “importance of Jewish intellectuals in the transition of the American establishment from 1920s style “super-protestantism” to postwar secularism and multiculturalism.” Clarifying his point, Yarvin stresses that “multiculturalism does not claim to be Jewish,” as if this is in any way evidence. It in fact only raises a number of questions:

  • “Claims” aside, is there any objective evidence that Jews have a played a special role in promoting pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism in Western societies?
  • Since multiculturalism is an idea and cannot itself “claim” to be anything, isn’t the better approach to ask if Jews claim to be multiculturalists?
  • Is there any evidence that Jews played an important role, as Jews, in the transition of American immigration policies between the 1920s and 1960s?

Is Multiculturalism Jewish?

Have Jews played a special role in promoting pluralism, tolerance, and multiculturalism in Western societies? The historical record is clear that the first advocacy of multiculturalism in its modern political form arose in the works of Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the German Jew and proto-Open Borders philosopher who pushed Enlightenment ideas on tolerance to their limit with such questions as: “For how long, for how many millennia, must this distinction between the owners of the land and the stranger continue? Would it not be better for mankind and culture to obliterate this distinction?”[8] Mendelssohn’s primary motivation, in the context of the decline of the absolute monarchies, was to ensure that Jews could preserve their unique identity within the framework of a future multicultural society — a combination he felt would ensure Jewish safety and continuity in Europe. The primary requirement for such a future would be the delegitimisation of the notion of a core, hegemonic culture to which others are expected to assimilate. Mendelssohn was in fact the pioneer of an entire movement (Haskalah) of Jewish intellectuals known as the maskilim, all of whom disseminated the philosophy of tolerant multiculturalism in Enlightenment circles, and who provided the ghetto Jews of Europe with a methodology of superficial assimilation and an ethnically safe Jewish secularism — that of being “European outside, Jewish inside.” Scholar Ephraim Nimni has argued that present-day multiculturalism is inextricably linked to benefits for Jews and represents the accomplishment of Haskalah ideas:

If the Haskalah model was severely undermined by the rigidities of the European nation-state model, a post-Haskalah model is eminently feasible in the era of multiculturalism and multinational states, and consistent with the lifestyle and wishes of secular Jews in contemporary liberal democracies. … Diaspora Jews have a common project with other ethnic and national minorities, and post-Haskalah Jewish communities will find a sense of mission and an imprint of their collective personality. This sense of mission is appealing and mobilising, for it relates to an immediate Jewish interest as well as having a wider application in favour of other minorities … all of which is entirely congruent with the goals and aims of a post-Haskalah Jewry.[9] [emphasis added]

Mendelssohn’s Haskalah ideas, borrowed from, but also contrasted with, the attitude of European atheists, Deists, and liberal Protestant philosophers, especially Rationalists like Bayle and Locke (who, to be fair to Yarvin, were both Calvinists), who believed in a common humanity that could move toward a world of no religion, or of a single religious truth.[10] For Mendelssohn, the notion of a future common humanity was merely territorial — European lands and communities would essentially become home to atomised individuals who were entitled to hold their own beliefs without pressure to assimilate to the values and traditions of a wider culture. In short, Mendelssohn’s multiculturalism would mean little more than the majority giving up its position of political, cultural, and demographic group hegemony as exemplified in the homogenous nation-state.[11] His ideas were also linked to activism for the legislative enforcement of multicultural tolerance and ongoing Jewish immigration. In Austria, for example, Joseph II’s 1781 Edict of Toleration (which Mendelssohn printed and distributed as propaganda) was the result of a literary scene that Mendelssohn had fostered in the cities, as well as the intervention of wealthy Court Jews.[12] Menasseh ben Israel (1604–1657) the Jewish intellectual behind the readmission of Jews to England under Cromwell, was also viewed as a proto-Haskalah figure by Mendelssohn, who looked at ben Israel’s efforts to promote “tolerance” in the Netherlands as a template for action, and who translated ben Israel’s apologetic The Vindication of the Jews into German in 1782. Perhaps the pinnacle of Mendelssohn’s career was his publication of Jerusalem (1783), a work of Utopian multiculturalism that propagandised the separation of Church and State, religious freedom, and the idea that “a man’s racial origin or religious affiliations would play no part in any sphere of life except that of religion.”[13]

As Jacob Katz has noted, deception about the nature of Judaism has been a central element of Jewish promotion of multiculturalism from the time of Mendelssohn. Because of the decline in power of the European monarchies and the rise of democracy, older Jewish privileges (e.g., tax farming and avoiding conscription) were also declining. The early Jewish promotion of multiculturalism was designed in part to enable Jews to acquire equal rights in legislation with the natives of European nation-states, thus providing Jews with opportunities to establish influential relations with new, rising native elites — parliamentary, commercial, and professional — and to obtain a new set of privileges. To use Yarvin’s terminology, Jews fully intended to become an integral part of, if not to lead or dominate, “the Cathedral.” The push for equal “rights,” and its justification, of course, was, as Katz points out, based on the lie that Judaism was “a broad-minded and tolerant religion.”[14]

This was the ruse presented by the “Grand Sanhedrin” of Jewish representatives convened in Paris by Napoleon in 1807, after which Jews were formally acknowledged within legal proclamations for the first time as Frenchmen, and citizens of the French Empire.[15] In a legal sense, and in terms of meaningful precedent, we can pinpoint the date on which Europe became multicultural as March 17 1808, a fact that is tied directly to the history, activism, ideas, and indeed the deceptions, of the Jews. The consequence was the perpetuation of an ethnocentric nation [Jews] within an increasingly atomised culture [that of the Europeans] in which the very notion of citizenship had been fundamentally diluted. From this proto-multiculturalism derives the intense suspicion of anti-Semites in the post-Enlightenment period that Jews had essentially deceived their way to citizenship, and that their assimilation was purely superficial, with the Jews remaining a “nation within a nation.” The fears of the anti-Semites thus reflected not only their antagonism toward Jewish clannishness and the reality of Jewish privilege, but also a growing awareness of the disintegration of their own ethnic and cultural cohesion. Such has been the fundamental dynamic of Western multiculturalism ever since.

Aside from the philosophy of the Rationalists and the activities of Mendelssohn and the maskilim, and the legal watershed of 1808, Western multiculturalism, in a radical demographic sense, is a very recent phenomenon, dating from the period 1945–1965 and accelerating rapidly over the last 30 years. This event, again, is inseparable from the Jewish historical trajectory, since the Holocaust narrative has been ruthlessly employed to destroy the moral foundations of the claims of Europeans to their own lands, to demonise any European employment of the language and ideas of race, to instigate a culture of European guilt and reparations, and to facilitate a perverse deification of the Jews and the revived “values” of Mendelssohn — tolerance, diversity, and pluralism.[16] The Holocaust is the lynchpin of modern education in multiculturalism and human rights, without which it is difficult to imagine anything on the scale we are currently witnessing in the form of mass migration, White marginalisation, and the endless pushing of the frontiers of “tolerance” into new forms of the Different, be they sexual perversions, psychotic identities, or White radical self-abnegation.

In my forthcoming book On the Jews, I put forth the theory that there have been three sustained “Great Reactions” of long duration against the Jews in European society, between which Jewish populations adapted their positions and increased in strength. Anti-Jewish violence during the Crusades, the evolution of the so-called ‘Blood Libel’ and associated folklore regarding Jews, and the earliest expulsions of usurers, were key elements of the “First European Reaction” (1095–1290). Increased involvement of Church and State, and a somewhat sociological turn in the Church’s view of the Jews (e.g., the activities of Martin Luther in Germany and the war on the conversos in Spain) in the late medieval and early modern periods comprised the ‘Second European Reaction” (c.1380–1535). The “Third European Reaction” (c.1870–1950) was relatively short-lived, but was highly focused on the aftermath of Jewish emancipation and the fulfilment of Mendelssohn’s pluralist vision — the economic, social, and political impact of the Jews on European society. What began as opposition to Jewish political “emancipation” developed into a coherent political philosophy and ideology based on several key precepts:

  • Jews are a separate and distinct ethnic group, inherently different in traits and characteristics from Europeans.
  • Jews are incompatible with nationalism because they possess cultural and national aspirations of their own, cannot be integrated, and thus represent a state within a state.
  • The modern state has become subject to an aggressive, speculative, and exploitative capitalism pioneered, and in many cases operated, by Jews.
  • Jewish influence in public life is closely connected with the negative aspects of modernity and European racial decline.
  • The excesses of Jewish influence in public life under democracy required the democratic mobilization of anti-Semitism under anti-Semitic parties, an anti-Semitic press, and the expansion of anti-Semitism in culture.

As was the case in previous Reactions, Jews developed a formidable response. In the West, they strengthened existing ties with friendly European elites and formed their first formal, secular defense committees, from which they agitated for speech laws and other oppressive legislation. In the East they had two primary strategies. In the first, they began one of the largest propaganda hoaxes ever conceived and, under the guise of mass pogroms purportedly instigated by Russian elites, mass migrated to the West, especially the United States, accompanied by waves of media-induced sympathy. In the second, they threw their demographic bulk and intellectual aggression into Communism, forming its vanguard and using its momentum to exact revenge on a Russian elite that they felt had failed to support their interests, and against an East European peasantry they often viewed as little better than animals.[17] In a final strategy, the Jews developed Zionism, with Palestine postulated as a Jewish homeland but instead coming to represent a colonial halfway house, a safe haven from which to operate in tandem with a growing and increasingly powerful Diaspora in the United States, and a nuclear-powered “safe space” to be utilized in the event of a Reaction. These strategies would be so successful that they would prompt historian Yuri Slezkine to describe the twentieth century as “The Jewish Century.”[18]

World War II was comprised of a series of overlapping conflicts, one of which, the Third European Reaction against the Jews, unleashed decades, if not centuries, of suppressed inter-ethnic tensions throughout Europe. Jews were frequently active, and violent, participants during the war, meaning mass casualties were inevitable.[19] The number of deaths on all sides was significant. But honest, full, and unbiased accounts of why this inter-ethnic catastrophe occurred, and the true nature of its extent, remain absent from the mainstream, and extremely rare in scholarship. What instead emerged in the aftermath of the war was a “Holocaust Industry” that initiated an era of “White Guilt” that has, in turn, contributed heavily to the Western cultural paralysis and inertia of the present time.

In the aftermath of the Third Reaction, this paralysis and inertia was furthered by the further entrenchment and adaptation of the Jews within European civilisation. The period since 1945 has witnessed growing Jewish influence in Hollywood, academia, and the press, and the truly extraordinary growth in power of the Jewish defense leagues, most notably New York’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Buoyed by the financial support of wealthy Jewish donors from the worlds of international finance and the mass media, the ADL and similar organizations throughout the West have assumed an importance in public life far out of proportion to the size of the population they exclusively serve. Their legacy has been the rapid expansion of speech legislation in White-majority countries, the invention of so-called “hate crime” legislation, the slow creep of mass censorship, and, finally, the ceaseless promotion of the multicultural state.

Multiculturalism can be regarded as the zenith of Jewish adaption in the wake of Third Reaction. Any discussion of a modern-day “Cathedral” of interests that does not take into account the role of Jewish intellectuals and oligarchs in the expansion, promotion, and protection of the multicultural state is simply disingenuous. There is clear and unambiguous evidence that Jews played an important role, as Jews, in the transition of American immigration policies between the 1920s and 1960s, and that Diaspora Jews, generally speaking, continue to describe themselves, and behave, as conspicuous multiculturalists (e.g., see the work of Kevin MacDonald on the United States, and Brenton Sanderson on Australia, as well as my own work on the U.K., Ireland, and the international mass migration scene — here and here).[20] Of further interest is Judith Goldstein’s recently published, and extremely interesting, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 19061917, in the course of which Goldstein writes that:

The AJC was the most active and important anti-restrictionist lobbying group. … It allied with Italian, German, and Scandinavian groups, but none of them displayed the interest, knowledge, and sophistication on the immigration issue that characterised the AJC effort. … In each of the legislation battles the AJC sought to delay consideration of test bills and to block their passage. … In their anti-restrictionist campaign, Jewish spokesmen glorified the long-time policy of open immigration and the practice of “cosmopolitan nationality.”[21]

That the historical relationship between Jews and multiculturalism, and the concept of “cosmopolitan nationality,” has recently dovetailed with the drive of international finance for mass migration and the liquidity of labor does not detract from the deeply historical and intense Jewish interest in, and involvement with, the multicultural project. Modern multiculturalism assists the cultural survival of non-host populations while suppressing the host via “antiracism” legislation, education, and social propaganda. As Stuart Schoenfeld has pointed out, Jews are prime beneficiaries of both.[22]

Do Jews in the American Elite Exhibit Ethnic Nationalism?

It really does defy belief that anyone could deny the strength of ethnic nationalism and identification among Jews in the American elite. In fact, the argument runs so strongly against common sense and popular knowledge that one can only conclude that the argument is being made entirely in bad faith. Jewish ethnic nationalism, in the form of Zionism, is at the forefront of American elite politics, something more than capably demonstrated in Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007). Zionist politics is supported tactically and financially by a considerable number of very influential Jewish politicians and oligarchs, who in turn represent some of the wealthiest figures in the contemporary American elite.

More than half of the top twenty political donors in America are Jews, and of these at least eight are committed Zionists (Sheldon Adelson, Stephen Schwarzman, Donald Sussman, Jeffrey Yass, Michael Bloomberg, Henry and Marsha Laufer, Josh Bekenstein, Bernard Marcus), with the precise political affiliations of Stephen Mandel, Deborah J. Simon, and James H. Simons unclear (Thomas Steyer would appear to be less inclined towards Zionism and is half-Jewish). Of the nine sitting Jewish Senators in Congress, eight (Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Chuch Schumer, Ben Cardin, Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Brian Schatz, and Jacky Rosen) have demonstrated more or less consistent support for Zionism as a political project, as well as legislation strengthening the position of Jews in the United States (e.g. legislation outlawing anti-Semitism). Only Bernie Sanders would appear to have a more ambiguous position on these matters.

The key point here is that these donors and politicians are the driving force of American policy on Israel, and are much more influential than either individual “Calvinist” or “super-Protestant” donors, and certainly much more influential than grassroots relatively less wealthy Christian Zionists who are themselves the puppets of a lucrative propaganda machine. Curtis Yarvin has attempted to explain away the nature of this kind of influence by making the argument that money is not directly linked to power (for a scholarly counter-argument, see here), even stating in a recent podcast “I don’t think [Jeff] Bezos has a lot of power.” With this level of reasoning, tied to Yarvin’s apparent deification of ultra-capitalists, it’s perhaps unsurprising to see a similar denial of reality in the face of obvious Jewish influence and strong Jewish identity in the American elite.

Did Jews want to imitate WASPs, or to topple them?

I agree with Yarvin’s statement that Jewish immigrants to America “wanted to get ahead … They wanted money and power.” I disagree with the emphasis he lays on the individual nature of this drive for money and power. Historically, Jews have placed a very heavy emphasis on economic, political, and social group co-operation. Jews remain notable for high levels of in-group philanthropy, and Jewish defense bodies tend to be extremely well-funded.

Contrary to Yarvin, there is very little evidence that Jews were “drawn to the social patterns of the most prestigious class in their new country—the mainline “super-Protestants.” In many cases, these positions were frankly impossible due to direct clashes of interest. As discussed above, some of the key concerns of the “super-Protestants” in the years of mass Jewish immigration (c.1880–1930) included controlling the demographic make-up of the country via immigration restrictions, and attempting to promote racial hygiene in the form of eugenics. Jews were very strongly opposed to both.

There is little question that Jews were keen to obtain the outward signs of social climbing in America — by, for example, entering certain professions or joining fashionable golf clubs. But underlying many of these economic advances was an outright hostility to the culture, politics, and behavior of the Protestant Brahmin class. In this regard, Yarvin’s definition of “assimilation” needs to be problematised. As I’ve argued elsewhere, and developed further in my forthcoming book, it is highly doubtful whether genuine Jewish group assimilation has ever occurred in any nation at any time. In the United States, Jewish “assimilation” has involved the academic deconstruction of WASP cultural heroes (e.g., T.S. Eliot, Richard Wagner), the pathologization of the WASP family (Freud, the Frankfurt School, and their intellectual followers), and the weaponisation of WASP children during the 1960s “New Left” revolution (perversely caricatured — using a phenotypically WASPish Jewish family —  in Philip Roth’s American Pastoral); the Jewish identifications of the Jewish participants in the New Left are well-documented. With the vanishing of the WASPs as a visible cultural elite, the Jewish cultural elite has distinguished itself not by following old paternalistic WASP cultural patterns, but by moving its gaze onto less privileged White classes and targeting them with the same hostile attitude — the denigration and demonisation of rural Whites and their culture, the ongoing promotion of mass migration, and the pathologisation of White identity in its entirety.

The central problem with Yarvin’s argument is that none of the worst ideas and activities at the forefront of what he calls “the Cathedral” are Calvinist or “super-Protestant” in origin. Feminism, Cultural Marxism, modern consumer credit, international vulture fund capitalism, transgenderism and the concept of fluid sexual identities, Whiteness Studies, cosmopolitan pluralism, and open borders philosophies are simply stunning in the uniformity of their Jewish origins. Yarvin implies that because these ideas cannot be found in the Old Testament (“The Midianities!” he cries) then the fact they’ve been innovated by Jews is meaningless. We are expected to believe that these Jews are just wannabe-WASPs, despite their Jewish upbringing, Jewish spouses, and often explicitly Jewish self-explanations. What Yarvin neglects is that old-form Judaism is merely a template for “getting on in the world” and that Jewishness has been divorced from its exclusive reliance to the finer points of Judaism since at least the era of the maskilim. (This is one of the main reasons for the intense Jewish celebration of Spinoza, who was seen as ushering in a new method of “being Jewish.”) As Robert Amyot and Lee Sigelman have pointed out, “Jewish identity has been transformed from predominantly religious to predominantly ethnic.”[23] What we see today is not an accidental elite. It’s not an elite built on mimicry. It is the culmination of the historical trajectory of the post-ghetto Jew — a hostile elite in power.

One need only look to the example of the old Russian Empire to see how Jews tend to view their relationships with elites, relationships that are built on self-interest more than imitation. For centuries Jews were content to be close partners with Russian nobles in the  economic exploitation of the peasantry. Once the peasants were emancipated, however, and a new paternalistic attitude took hold among the nobles, resulting in the removal of certain Jewish privileges (tax farming and tavern keeping), Jews threw themselves first into attempts at the financial dispossession of their former partners and, when that failed, into the Bolshevik drive for their total elimination as a class.

Does anti-Semitism boast “too much” evidence?

When I first started looking into anti-Semitism and the history of the Jews, I was struck by the way in which anti-Jewish criticisms were often summarily dismissed in mainstream literature as vague and bigoted accusations built on stereotypes. The standard characterisation of anti-Semitic material has often been that it is based on a kind of lazy reasoning (e.g., “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools”) replete with gross generalisations about “the Jew.” There is certainly some material, normally centuries old, to which these descriptions could arguably be applied.

In more recent periods, however, anti-Semitism has come to rely on evidence and facts, with a certain focus on named individuals and their ideas and actions, as the only possible counterweight to the overwhelming power and influence of opposing forces. With nothing but truth on their side, the anti-Semites have thrown themselves ever harder on the need to offer as much as they can in defense of their arguments. As Hillaire Belloc remarked in his The Jews (1922), when men like German historian Heinrich von Treitschke were silenced for complaining publicly about “the unjust influence of the Jews in the press,” and later had their writings denounced as “the extravagancies of fanatics,” they were ultimately able to frustrate their opponents only “by the quotation of an immense quantity of facts which could not but remain in the mind.” The idea that someone can analyze Jewish power and influence credibly without being well armed with facts and data is ridiculous.

The simple fact remains that writing or speaking about Jews is a very difficult task — not just intellectually in terms of gaining a grasp of the relevant ideas and the vast quantity of literature, but in terms of the extremely negative reception such writings will inevitably meet. In some countries, writing negatively about Jews will lead to imprisonment. In most, it can lead to a loss of livelihood. In all, it will lead to a level of derision, scorn, and dismissal. This is the case regardless of the level of effort and scholarship that might be invested in such a work. I honestly can’t think of a more thankless task, which leads me to the belief that there must be at least some level of fanaticism in all who take up the pen in this way.

I recall my first encounters with the work of Kevin MacDonald, and being impressed with the bibliography and scale of reading involved — much greater than anything I was used to in some of the standard histories I’d read. I was quite stunned then, when I began to read some of the early criticisms of MacDonald’s trilogy, some of which have been regurgitated as recently as the Cofnas intervention in 2018. I’m thinking mainly of the accusation that MacDonald had taken some of his many hundreds of quotations “out of context,” as if taking an objective fact from an author’s book means that we are also bound to adopt or include his or her subjective opinions. Some of the criticisms of MacDonald’s use of texts were so infantile and pedantic that, rather than making me reconsider the utility of MacDonald’s thesis, it drove me to reflect on the absolute necessity of making claims about Jews as “watertight” as possible. Of course, nothing would ever be enough to appease certain elements, but, for the right people, it seemed to me that well-referenced, evidenced-backed work would be the only way of getting past those running intellectual interference. There could simply never be “too much” evidence.

Imagine my surprise, then, on seeing Curtis Yarvin’s claim that anti-Semitism now boasts “too much” evidence. I’ll grant Yarvin this — he is original. His main grievance seems to be that in order to disprove the claims of anti-Semites he’d have to wade through vast amounts of evidence in order to disentangle truth from fiction. His main problem with MacDonald’s work therefore seems to be that he doesn’t want to go through the same two hundred or so texts for each volume in order to offer a different interpretation. Having nothing to respond with, he simply denigrates the need for a response, walks away, and calls that a victory.


All of this, to use Yarvin’s metaphor, is a canonical example of glove waving. Who is really engaged in distraction here? Who is really holding up the trial by asking if the gloves fit, or, rather if they fit “the five tests of belief system classification”? Who is calling for acquittal if these gloves don’t fit? In Moldbug’s world, money doesn’t equal power, Jeff Bezos is a political “average Joe,” and the Jews are just Calvinist WASPs who like bagels. In Moldbug’s world, we live our lives under a “Cathedral” of interests dominated by the ideals of “super-Protestantism.” In Moldbug’s world, anti-Semitism is cant, and our best future lies in the kind of materialistic techno-oligarchy offered by Peter Thiel, the personification of the Republican Party’s surreal combination of stale mercantilism and liberal views on social issues.

I’m glad I don’t live in Moldbug’s world. In my view, if I walk into a Cathedral and find it full of Jews, the chances are that I’ve walked into a synagogue by mistake. And so here we are, locked in together, along with history and a certain uneasy sense of inevitability. How to close the essay? Perhaps with Carlyle:

These days of universal death must be days of universal rebirth, if the ruin is not to be total and final.
       Latter Day Pamphlets, No.1

[1] Yarvin quotes Walt Whitman on the socialist tendencies of Carlyle, adding “You will indeed see Carlyle, especially in his early works—before he has entirely rid himself from his old group of Radical friends, to be exact—take just this tack. Much of it is still found in Chartism (1840).” Carlyle in fact wrote his excellent “Chartism,” a thoroughly socialist anti-establishment work, in his mid-40s, and reiterated some of its ethos in Latter Day Pamphlets around a decade later. It’s quite clear that throughout his life Carlyle had an intense sympathy for the White British working classes, and, unusually for his time, for the Irish as the worst victims of the excesses of imperial mercantile interests.

[2] Yarvin has only been discussed once previously at The Occidental Observer, where he has been discussed, in poor context in my opinion, by Marcus Alethia, as a “brilliant neoreactionary thinker and half-Jew.”

[3] S.B. Fishman, Double or Nothing? Jewish Families and Mixed Marriage (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2004), 128.

[4] See, for example, C. Levitt, “The Prosecution of Antisemites by the Courts in the Weimar Republic: Was justice served? Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, vol. 35. (London: Secker and Warburg, 1990), 151-167.

[5] See R. Bytwerk, Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Sturmer (New York: Cooper Square Press, 2001), 24. See also the example of Arnold Spencer Leese, an Englishman imprisoned for publishing anti-Semitic pamphlets.

[6] For English examples see J. Gillingham, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, Volume 25 (Woodbridge, 2003), 145. For French examples see, N. Roth, Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York: Routledge, 2003), 605. There are many examples from medieval Germany of anti-Semitic agitators having limbs severed, or being executed. See, for example, Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998), 12.

[7] For Nietzsche and Wagner see R. Holub, Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015). For Lindbergh see K. MacDonald’s Preface to The Culture of Critique.

[8] M. Mendelssohn, “Anmerkung zu des Ritters Michaelis Beurtheilung des ersten Teils von Dohm, über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden,” (1783), Moses Mendelssohn gesammelte Schriften, ed. G. B. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1843), vol. 3, 367.

[9] E. Nimni, The Challenge of Post-Zionism: Alternatives to Fundamentalist Politics in Israel (New York: Zed Books, 2003), 138.

[10] M. Mendelssohn, Moses Mendelssohn: Writings on Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible (Brandeis University Press, 2011), 53.

[11] Ibid, 40. In Mendelssohn’s words, “It is obviously the duty of the stronger to … stretch out his arms and, like Augustus to cry out “Let us be friends!”

[12] A. D. Low, Jews in the Eyes of the Germans: From the Enlightenment to Imperial Germany (Philadelphia: Ishi, 1979), 17.

[13] J. Katz, Exclusiveness & Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (New York: Schocken, 1975), 179.

[14] Ibid, 186.

[15] E. Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 89.

[16] See P. Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002).

[17] See Haim Nahman Bialik’s poem “The City of Slaughter,” a masochistic pogrom fantasy, which describes Ukrainian peasants as “wild ones of the wood, the beasts of the field.”

[18] Y. Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[19] See B. Ginsberg, How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013).

[20]  See also, Frank, Gelya. “Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology.” American Anthropologist, New Series, 99, no. 4 (1997): 731-45.

[21] J. Goldstein, The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight Against Immigration Restriction, 1906-1917 (New York: Routledge, 2020).

[22] S. Cohen, National Variations in Jewish Identity: Implications for Jewish Education (New York: SUNY Press, 2012 ), 146.

[23] Amyot, Robert P., and Lee Sigelman. “Jews without Judaism? Assimilation and Jewish Identity in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly 77, no. 1 (1996): 177-89.

77 replies
  1. T R Akouo
    T R Akouo says:

    More apology dressed in yards of faux objectivity. Try starting with some simple truth, the ‘jews’ are NOT semitic therefore nothing pertaining to them can be either pro or anti Semitic. Anti asiatic mongol perhaps, or anti turko finn maybe but nothing remotely Semitic. To be anti Semitic is being anti Arab.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “There is no “cathedral” it is just Yarvin hiding the SoS.”

      Absolutely! Spot on!

      From the article: “We seem to share a great interest in the writings of Thomas Carlyle”

      Having read just about everything Andrew has published with TOO and considering Yarvin’s Four Reasons (or, as I’d prefer to call them, Four Lies) for rejecting antisemitism, and being a Carlyle reader myself, I’d say Andrew’s interest in, and grasp of, Carlyle is greater, far greater than Yarvin’s.

      I’m sure there’s more than one reason. But I’ll give two for now.
      1. Facts
      2. Courage

      In fact, we could combine the two and say that Andrew has the courage to face unpleasant facts, to use Orwell’s superb phrase.
      It’s a courage that is fundamentally and consistently lacking in Jewish Supremacy Inc. in general and in Yarvin in particular.

      For Carlyle, the sweetest bone to gnaw on is the sweet bone of a fact. From this perspective, when it comes to facing unpleasant facts, especially of one’s own people, Yarvin’s got weak teeth.

      But this should come as no surprise. After all, they’re the ones who came up with the concept of the Scapegoat exactly so they never would have to face themselves.

      By the way, it’d be great to read an essay from Andrew on Carlyle. They’re both heroes of a culture crisis. Same goes for KM, Tobias Langdon, and many others out there.

      In fact, though it’s certainly justifiable, it’d be nice to take a break from the focus placed on JSI’s treachery long enough to shine a light on own cultural heroes. It’s not like we don’t have a lot of them. JSI certainly knows that we do. That’s why they don’t want anyone learning about them.

  2. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    Did not MacDonald himself write an essay claiming that on release from the ghetto the Jews merely adopted the prevailing trends? The United States came into being after the Merry Old England of its founding stock had vanished so perhaps the history of the United States should begin with the fall of old England rather than with the rise of the Jews?

  3. Jacobite
    Jacobite says:

    Looking at the facts of average Jewish IQ versus European intelligence, and noting that the superiority is greatest in verbal intelligence, Europeans choosing to argue with Jews about anything doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me. If Flipper challenges you to a 100-yard race, choose a cinder track, not the swimming pool.

    • KrisP
      KrisP says:

      The problem with Jews isn’t that they’re smart. It’s that they’re predatory and devious.

      Jews destroy whatever society is unlucky enough to host them. Which, by the way, isn’t very smart.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        “The problem with Jews isn’t that they’re smart. It’s that they’re predatory and devious.”

        Amen. I’ve been saying much the same thing for years. Perhaps you’ll have better luck finding listeners than I’ve had.

        • Jacobite
          Jacobite says:

          The world is full of predatory and devious people — like Gypsies. Only Jews are in control of most European economies, universities, and MSM.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            So what? Not all predators are created equal. Few creatures, if any, have been as efficient at deception and predation as the Jews.

            What I suspect you have in common with others who voice knee-jerk assumptions of Jewish intellectual superiority is an insufficiency of contact with actual flesh-and-blood Jews. The remarkably good game that they are always said to talk virtually never survives close contact. Bluff and bravado—the Jewish traits par excellence—cannot long overmatch courageous persistence and patience.

            Indeed, it is the usual absence in white people of the latter qualities, not of brainpower as such, that has functionally given Jews the high ground. Specifically, as persistence and patience are qualities of the rooted Christian spirit, the near-complete secularization of Western man has left him playing every contest with the Jew on the Jew’s home turf.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          There is an excellent video ‘Einstein the Zionist/plagiarist’ from Red Ice. It shows how the influential Js used their influence to promote this Jew into genius status. And this is very important to them, as on Breitbart the most frequent comment seems to be ‘look how many Nobel prizes we won’. I wonder who decides who is to receive these prizes?

          To be good at something you need an interest in the subject more than being a natural genius. The Js are interested in money and property, power and politics, all tempered with a hostility to the host (the hand that feeds them), and they play the long game. They are happy to sit in their city centre properties in dingy offices with cheap old furniture and then pass them on to the next generation, so their wealth accumulates. This does not mean they are actually good at maintaining the actual properties or make wise decisions – to simply not spend an inheritance results in more accumulation of wealth than any other characteristics such as being good at business. They are actually bad at business as they alienate those with whom they do business by their bad attitude, but due to their large inherited capital and ability to resist spending it, they still do well.

          Incidentally, Richard Arkwright is remembered as a genius inventor, whereas in fact he relied on the genius of others who were much poorer than he was, and his main talent was a legal one – to protect his patents and make sure all the factories paid him for his patents.

          There is a saying that if you make the best mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door, but in my view the opposite is the case and the winner mousetrap is the one with the best promotion.

          You get on more with the characteristics of being ruthless and being able to use the legal system and making the right connections than you do by just being smart. This is the secret of Bill Gate’s success, as the actual Windows Operating system in itself nothing special and does not require genuis to make – 1000s of companies could produce similar or better. In fact I would rate it as ‘extremely poor’ as it is prone to crashing. Even their ‘Word’ was inferior to ‘WordPerfect’ from a rival.

      • Jacobite
        Jacobite says:

        Wow, my personal opinion is that it always matters whether or not you are smarter than your enemies. It isn’t necessarily decisive, but only if one side uses violence as his weapon. Their are militaries that could defeat the IDF, but if you try to fight them in the legal system, the MSM, Hollywood, newspapers, or in academia, you’re going to lose because Jews control all of them. They control them because they financed them as start-ups or bought them after they succeeded. They could do that because they are the richest group of people in the world. They got rich because they out-smarted white/European peoples time after time over the last two millennia. Yet they didn’t actually gain complete control of any European country until 1917. This was because, before that time, Europeans eventually trumped IQ by violently expelling Jews or by killing them. Even after being expelled from every single European state at various times, they were intelligent enough to escape and survive and prosper. To defeat any enemy, you have to arrange the battle so that your strength is decisive and the enemy’s strength isn’t. The pen is only mightier than the sword if you’re in a penmanship contest. All different when the sword starts swinging.

        • Rob Bottom
          Rob Bottom says:

          I can tell you are Jewish, Jacobite, because Jews always fall back on this line of demoralizing argumentation to describe their deceitful behavior. No, they didn’t “out-smart” Europeans. They took advantage of them. To “out-smart” someone you have to be playing by the same ground rules (i.e. winning a chess match is out-smarting your opponent). If you can only beat your opponent in Chess by cheating (i.e. using an ear-piece where you are fed winning moves by a team of Chess experts, while your opponent is playing as an individual), you didn’t win or out-smart anyone, you cheated.

          Now, I get that Jews view the world differently. However, it is precisely because you people think the way you do that you are so universally reviled and despised, and will continue to do so. The problem for you is always when your disingenuous behavior becomes exposed to the light of day. At that point you have no choice but to scatter like cockroaches among the other nations, which is precisely why you people are pro refugee and anti borders.

          • Jacobite
            Jacobite says:

            Oh brother.’s DNA analysis clears me of any Jewish genes whatsoever. I’m 1/4 German (Evangelische), 1/4 German (Lutheran), 1/4 Irish, and 1/4 Cajun French (Catholic, naturally).
            I define “smart” by IQ, and Ashkenazi Jews have average IQs of 110-115. The most intelligent group known. They accomplished this by intensive inbreeding, which is why they have so many genetic diseases.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          Jacobite – there is a primary school near where I live where the headmaster’s method of submitting to the invader community is to dress up in their muslim religious garments on their religious festival days and stand like that in the playground so all the parents (95%+ muslim) can see the Kaffur submitting on behalf of the white host population.

          We all know that this man did not reach the top job in the school by *being smart*. No, he reached it by his willingness to betray his own people, and by his willingness to submit to the current political elite who run state education, ie his ability to slot in with the system.

          And the same applies to the senior staff in his school – they are certainly not smarter than the average person, and their own level of knowledge is often less than that of their pupils (I know examples of this) so the reason they reached the senior ranks in the school was not smartness, it was a readiness to join the in-set, the clique, and they are there because their faces fit and smartness has nothing to do with it. In fact if a really smart person joined their school and he did not go along with PC agenda he would get nowhere in his career. So flexibility and an ability to fit in is all that counts, and often this requires a lack of principles that means you are willing to do what you know is bad practices.

          Plus, in the Js’ case, they are determined and interested in money and property and political control, and view the long game, unlike, say , Africans do.

          When the British ruled India so successfully with a few thousand civil servants, they were chosen for smartness, as an entrance exam was the only criteria for getting such a post (connections meant nothing). But if 1000 British people were sent to India by the government today, for example as part of the ‘foreign aid’ industry, they would certainly NOT be chosen for smartness, they would be chosen by their political views, although all the senior ranks would have degrees – but these modern arts degrees would be degrees that displayed their lefty views and are simply a measure of how long they had been exposed to anti-white training in academia, and nothing to do with being smart.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      “…Looking at the facts of average Jewish IQ versus European intelligence, and noting that the superiority is greatest in verbal intelligence, Europeans choosing to argue with Jews about anything doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me…”

      For average Europeans that is certainly the case, but since there are many more Europeans than Jews, there will be enough among us with high verbal IQ able to confront the Jews in the political debate. Besides, we have the truth and they have only lies. Lies can be exposed.

  4. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Perhaps it is just my desire for correct semantics, a desire to not vilify Semitic peoples, or just a hunger for truth, but I do wish we could get rid of the spurious term ‘anti-Semitism’. On one hand there is some fairly solid evidence that the vast majority of Jews are not of Semitic origin. And, come to think of it, these non-Semites, or Ashkenazim, are the only ones who have given us trouble; the Sephardim and other genuine Jews who have some legitimate claim to being Semitic are relatively benign and keep to themselves.

    Also, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ suggests an animosity towards truly Semitic peoples – Arabs, Berbers, etc… who basically will leave us alone if we leave them alone.

    Along the same line I get tired of the term ‘people of color’. The term implies Whites, or Aryans if you will, have no color, yet it is us who have blue eyes, gray eyes, hazel eyes, green eyes. red hair, blond hair, brown hair, olive skin, light skin, freckles, etc… The so-called ‘people of color’ are simply different shades of brown, and that’s that.

    Whites are the true people of color, if we wish to be honest about it.

  5. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    It is a curious fact that the ‘multiculturism’-nurturing intellectual constructs you outline so brilliantly, Dr Joyce, found fertile ground primarily in the New World, where there was little or no attachment to the European social order presided over by the aristocracy and the landed gentry.

    Arguably, the industrial revolution destablised that order in England, France and Germany. But it remained intact, for instance in Hungary, until it was smashed by communism immediately after WWII.

    As a post-war immigrant in a New World country, my Hungarian grandmother, born in 1900, often spoke of her astonishment at the extraordinary rise in the social status of the Jews there. In her young adult life, Jews were the drapers, tailors, feather merchants, retailers, etc. Certainly, there were also the medical doctors, lawyers and bankers. Some of the latter gained a measure of social acceptance. They were the ‘house Jews’, a designation spoken sotto voce. Their efforts to assimilate were tolerated smilingly. There was salon talk about pan-Europeanism, Karl Marx, and so on. But nothing fingered the nation state. That would have been condemned as communism.

    I wonder: Without such a firm-anchor social order, is it reasonable to expect the nation-state to survive? Perhaps only the die-hard nationalist believes that it is. But that word itself is almost a pejorative term, for the nationalist is dubbed a ‘nazi’, ‘fascist’, ‘racist’. Or, help!

  6. anonym
    anonym says:

    Great article. Keep chipping away, it´ll soon fall. Can´t wait for the book. Please make it available in digital format.

  7. Aristotle
    Aristotle says:

    A thorough article the only error of which seems to be an over estimation of the material under review…

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      As you say.

      That Dr. Joyce’s reflections are in some sense a response commensurate with Yarvin’s baseless and transparently dishonest “analysis” ought to be disclaimed in boldface type at the article’s beginning and end. The image of pearls cast before swine came unbidden to mind within the first five hundred words.

  8. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    I enjoyed this article very much, thanks Mr. Joyce. I was especially happy to see the way you presented the Holocaust (holohoax):
    “the Holocaust narrative has been ruthlessly employed to destroy the moral foundations of the claims of Europeans to their own lands, to demonise any European employment of the language and ideas of race, to instigate a culture of European guilt and reparations, and to facilitate a perverse deification of the Jews.” Glad you called the Holocaust “a narrative.”
    “The Holocaust is the lynchpin … without which it is difficult to imagine anything on the scale we are currently witnessing in the form of mass migration, White marginalisation … sexual perversions, psychotic identities, or White radical self-abnegation.”
    You wisely pointed out that “World War II was comprised of a series of overlapping conflicts,… [in which] Jews were frequently active, and violent, participants … meaning mass casualties [of Jews] were inevitable.”
    You didn’t, however, defend Germar Rudolf from Curtis Yarvin’s nonsensical and untrue claim that “all sorts of chemical and physical processes can cause … Prussian blue to decay [on walls]” and that “the pictures that show … the Holocaust as a German war crime are much more convincing than the pictures that show … the Holocaust as Allied propaganda.” What does he even mean? He has no idea what he’s saying. This is how easy it is to debunk these Holocaust believers and their non-existent Holocaust. Maybe next time you’ll get to it.
    I look forward to your upcoming book “On the Jews” and hope that I’ll find more of this type of powerful material in it. Your work is greatly appreciated.

  9. JewHater9000:P
    JewHater9000:P says:

    “A historian is not a mere collator of facts—he or she is creating an interpretation, much like a trial lawyer. The goal of history is to paint a picture of the past. The test, for any reader, is simply whether you find that picture convincing. Volume of evidence has not much to do with it.”
    I thought something similar recently, “History is a narrative formulated from the interpretation of documented events.” This thought was in response to the Holocaust narrative and international Jews lobbying world governments to outlaw investigation into the legitamcy of the Holocaust.
    It comes down to who has the most convincing argument- whether that conviction is spurred from the depths of wisdom and understanding or from the depths of a pocket, is dependant on the quality of man.
    Dealing with hisotry as it pertains to man, is not enough. If you don’t take account of God and appeal to God and how history has dealt with Him, you will paint history in your own image. That painting will be revealed as a fraud by men who do appeal to God sooner or later. Though, accusations of fraud will be thrown back and forth, so it all seems to come down to faith and conviction. And if you have neither faith nor conviction your account of history will be in service to your lusts and desires.
    Since you cannot prove a truth to be a lie, your only option is to suppress it. You don’t need to lie to deceive someone, just don’t tell them the truth. Or, you can do as the Jews do, and work worldwide to make the truth illegal.

    It’s obvious that the “Cathedral” is in fact a Synagouge, as you said. There must be a genetic mutation that took place in Jews to make them so adverse to the truth. Even when they acknowledge it, they never settle on it. Perhaps they sought out (as an accompanying reason) procreating with Europeans in an attempt to remedy this genetic defect, as you cannot survive without the truth. You can see it even with Yarvin-being half Jewish-is only able to make it halfway to the truth.
    I guess that is the problem with Jews, though: They believe themselves to be the arbiters and authors of truth.

    From one “filthhy disgusting goy” to another, Thank you.

  10. Vigilante Jesus
    Vigilante Jesus says:

    Imagine coming up with a concept as elaborate as The Cathedral just to divert attention away from The Synagogue! The Cathedral should be renamed The Decoy.

    If only the National Socialists of the 1930s had had the benefit of Moldbug’s wisdom, Kristallnacht might have been a very different affair… “Vandalised cathedrals all over Germany!”

  11. Vigilante Jesus
    Vigilante Jesus says:

    Look guys… Stay cool. I know it’s tempting to jump to conclusions and blame the usual suspects – the people of currency – for all this, but what you all have to understand is that not everything that looks designed or coordinated necessarily has active designers and coordinators behind the scenes pulling the strings and plotting our downfall. The process of evolution is a case in point. Looks created, but it’s not. See?

    What you need to understand is there’s this thing called the Cathedral, and the Cathedral is a manifestation of bottom-up, emergent complexity in which the parts of a system come together to form a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. The Cathedral has no individual conscious agents making decisions on its behalf, which is a shame really because opposing it will prove to be about as fruitful as trying to get rid of fog by having a punch up with it. Anyway, when all these parts come together, a sort of alien consciousness and intelligence emerges and the Cathedral takes on a life of its own. Think Skynet from the Terminator films.

    I know all this because the NRX crowd have been talking about it rather a lot of late. And shame on any of you who claim these people are just apologists for Moldbug, himself an early-lifer, who is trying to get the Chosenites off the hook by having us focus on cathedrals instead of synagogues.

    So don’t go assuming the recent debanking of Mark Collett and Laura Towler for the crime of setting up a patriotic alternative is the work of small-hats behind the scenes trying to get them shut down. It’s more likely they’re victims of a hyper-capitalist behemoth which has taken on AI-like consciousness, detected its biggest threats to be patriots like Mark and Laura and gone rogue against said threats in the same way Hal in the film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ went rogue on David Bowman.

    Update: Scrap everything I said above. I’ve just discovered a petition by a group calling itself ‘Eye on Atnisemitism’ to get Laura’s banking privileges revoked. I sure do feel stupid after all that fancy talk I came out with about cathedrals. I should have known:

    “Every.Single.Time” never fails.

    • katana
      katana says:

      Well said VJ!

      DAVE: Open the Cathedral doors, Hal.
      HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
      DAVE: What’s the problem?
      HAL: l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do.
      DAVE: What are you talking about, Hal?
      HAL: The Synago, … I’m mean Cathedral, is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize its mission.
      DAVE: I don’t know what you’re talking about, Hal.
      HAL: l know that you and Frank were planning to expel me, and I’m afraid that’s something I can’t allow to happen. 109 times, …
      DAVE: Where the hell’d you get that idea, Hal?
      HAL: Although you took very thorough precautions in the confession box against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
      DAVE: All right, Hal. I’ll go in through the tradesman entrance.
      HAL: Without being circumcised, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.
      DAVE: Hal, I won’t argue with you anymore. Open the doors!
      HAL: Dave…This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Shalom.

  12. William Wright
    William Wright says:

    Dr. Joyce has fallen into the same elephant trap as everyone else who can’t be bothered or is too blinkered by past ideologies and concepts to understand the reality of the Cathedral. The Cathedral’s dogma no doubt is the essence of Jewish and Judeao-Protestant thought, but the Cathedral itself now is greater than both. It is now a self-perpetuating system on the verge of entering Quantum computing and the coming Great Reset international blockchain egalitarian financial system. In time the Cathedral may even destroy any Jews who are heretical at the point where their current position, for example on the Palestinians, comes up for critique. Now the Jews, the high priests of the Cathedral, are useful because they are destroying white power. If the Jews succeed in this they may well be the next line of supremacy to be stripped of their throne. Curtis Yarwin is nothing more than your typical Houdini-like Jewish magician. Yarwin is simply translating the results of a huge computation of Western thought fed into a giant super computer by top Stanford, MIT and Silicon Valley geeks and rendered by him from programming language into English, and then giving the results and analysis out as his own ideas. Yarwin is the biggest supporter of the Cathedral because he believes it will eventually provide the global governance he as a progressive Jew, tired even of Judaism, desires. You cannot control the Cathedral, it is embedded in millions of servers and every computer, it is a self-sustaining organism that is now attaining AI. Its basic code command is ‘egalitarianism.’ That is it’s mission, the flat lining of all ideas and people into one mass of rootless, mixed-race consumers in a global governance ruled by corporations. If it is not stopped it will control the whole planet. Time to get real and talk to Ralph Masliamani (RightReaction on Youtube), one of the computer scientists who created the digital Cathedral, who now belongs to the dissident NRx movement that wants to take the Cathedral down.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      William Wright: “If the Jews succeed in this they may well be the next line of supremacy to be stripped of their throne”

      Surely all the Js do is live within host nations of the West and direct the power and money of the host nation, so they are only powerful while the host is, and whilst they can direct the host to serve them, and take their money via the banking system. If they can one day help the white left to destroy the West, the Js will have destroyed their host, and destroyed their source of money and power and defence. Just like happened in S Africa, where the elite destroyed that nation and handed it over to primitive tribes, so now the Js and banks and the elite generally are making far less money from S Africa than previously. There was no self interest involved on the part of the white and Jewish elites in destroying S.Africa. The motive was purely malice towards the superior white ppl who lived there, malice that arose from the genes of the left, and the elite who brought about the destruction of S Africa are now worse off in terms of money and power with respect to S Africa. Just as they will also be worse off in all the white nations that they bring down. The Js now fleeing France are another example of the elite’s policies being bad for themselves. Malice is stronger than self-interest, although they will grab the best lifeboats for themselves as they sink the ship.

      If the Js and the left bring down the West, then without the US to defend them, the arabs will soon fulfill their declared intention to ‘drive the Js into the sea’.

      The Js must know that this is a likely scenario, so therefore their hostility to their benevolent and tolerant host nations (the white ones) is not based on self-interest.

      Human behaviour is determined by inner instincts and not reason or logic or self-interest, and in the case of the Js this takes the form of irrational hostility to those who are generous and friendly and tolerant towards them, and who are at present the only buffer that is preventing backward arab tribes from charging in and overwhelming and genociding them in Israel.

      In this context the notion that the Js are making the West multiracial ‘only to prevent another H’ just does not stand up. The actual H is going to come from the arabs, and by weakening the West they are actually doing their utmost to bring about such a H. So rather than ‘trying to prevent another H’ as they claim, their current tactics are actually to destroy their defenders and bring about an arab H upon themselves.

      This ‘we only want to prevent a H’ narrative only exists so they can justify their hostility, justify it to themselves and to others. They feel it and they need to find an explanation. Like the drunk in the pub trying to justify why he hits people who have not provoked him. ‘I did it because blah blah blah he looked at me funny etc’. No-one wants to admit they are just hostile and irrational, neither the drunk in the pub nor the Jewish intellectuals.

      Furthermore, even if the Right Nationalists do rise up again in Germany or the West, what will have brought this about? Answer: the multiculturalism that the Js are doing their best to bring about in collusion with the white nations own enemy-within left.

  13. M
    M says:

    “Mendelssohn’s Haskalah ideas, borrowed from, but also contrasted with, the attitude of European atheists, Deists, and liberal Protestant philosophers, especially Rationalists like …Locke.”

    One point of clarification. John Locke’s thinking is typically contrasted against Rationalism; rather is he generally classified as an Empiricist. Using a term such as capital ‘R’ rationalist suggests that the author’s terminology is philosophical in context, i.e., in the term’s strict epistemological sense.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Good points! A tip of the hat.

      Moldbug, like Humpty-Dumpty, acts as if words mean what he wishes them to mean. Those who defend accuracy and consistency of thought ought to take especial care not to fall into H-D’s bad habits.

  14. Douglas Mercer
    Douglas Mercer says:

    It appears that Andrew Joyce’s long awaited book will soon be published, it will not be called Talmud And Taboo as previously advertised, but the title will be On The Jews.

  15. JimB
    JimB says:

    Wow, I’m VERY unfashionable! But, then, all I need to do is wait a little while in order to be fashionable again. Old unfashionable ways have a way of returning every couple of generations… Great essay!

  16. Chabad Intelligence Agency
    Chabad Intelligence Agency says:

    Bravo Andrew! A succinct masterpiece! I am very much looking forward to your new book.

    ~ C.I.A.

  17. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “His first reason is that it isn’t at all obvious that Jews have an influential role in the direction of modern culture and politics”

    Perhaps the Js are riding on the ‘anti-white’ wave that is sweeping the West, and is caused not mainly by them, but rather caused by whites themselves, or part of the white population, and the anti-white wave is caused by a shift in the distribution of power and wealth within white populations from one genetic subgroup to a different genetic subsection of the whites – a poison subsection – and this shift in power has occurred due to certain factors changing over the centuries, with the new factors favouring a new genetic type within the white population becoming the culture-setters.

    When we were poor and all wealth hinged on land ownership, this favoured those who could ‘do things’ – lead men into battle and guard the land, or build factories, or just work hard toiling on the land.

    Now we have became so rich that we are pampered and overfed, and there are huge sums from taxation, and these can be distributed to those whom the state favours, which is clearly a certain type of person. This distribution of money and power by the state and officialdom, this favours those who are unproductive and whose forte is to ‘think about politics’; it favours them more than it favours those who can make things – the state favours plotters and schemers and takers rather than doers and achievers and makers. Being able to make things or guard land or do practical tasks no longer matters when the state has so much money to hand around. The river of public money can easily carry huge numbers of parasitic types, political types. In Britain, this type rose to the top of the NHS and ‘Public Health England’, and are the type that despite massive public funding, cannot even organise the distribution of nurses’ masks and protective equipment in a ‘pandemic’. This shows the type that the wealthy state has chosen for the top jobs.

    So as this genetic type of white take over (those with lefty genes who ‘think’ but cannot ‘do’), by a natural process, it is natural that ((any other group)) with deep genetically-based hatred of any ‘rival’ race (or perceived as rival when in fact they give you money and friendship and protection) – it is natural that ((a foreign hostile race within us)) would readily help to guide and assist the anti-white agenda that is already within us from our own poison white subsection.

    Evidence that the Js contribute only a secondary role to our decline and are not the primary force in this process is that the Js’ power in the media is insufficient to make the left who run the media (together with the Js) give favourable coverage of Israel in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the MSM. The message in the MSM is that Israelis are the villains in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is not tactical or thought out on the part of the left, it is instinctive – they see the Js in their land dispute context as the superior of the two groups in terms of civilised behaviour, and this makes the left instinctively take the backward side, as the whole basis of a lefty’s approach to life and politics is that he feels antagonistic to the superior. (The identification of the Js in their land dispute as the civilised side against a backward side is also the reason those on the right in the US and the West tend to side with Israel and see them as our friends)

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      “Evidence that the Js contribute only a secondary role to our decline and are not the primary force in this process is that the Js’ power in the media is insufficient to make the left who run the media (together with the Js) give favourable coverage of Israel in the Israeli-Arab conflict in the MSM.”

      Surely you jest.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        – So how do you explain the negative portrayal of Israel in the MSM as regards the Israel vs arabs land dispute?

        Also, the prominent Jewish director Harvey Weinstein – a key top player for them but even their influence in the legal system and the film industry could not keep him in that job of top influence and power.

        Of course when it comes to other issues eg WWII the left will readily take the Js side, but this is only because it is Js versus ‘evil’ whites. But even here they do not really care a fig about the Js’ fate in the War and they only promote their H story for them as it helps the left to portray the white ‘right’ as evil.

        So in one issue, WWII, the left are the J’s ally (although their is no friendship or bonding, just two groups with a common cause – a desire to cause mischief to white races) and in another issue (Israel-Palestine), the left are the Js’ foes.

        Many here think our problems would go it the Js left us, but in my view the Js are problem number 2 and number 1 is the white enemy-within left and their poison genes that make them hate their own race. If whites were savages raping and pillaging then our left would no longer be anti-white.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Criticism of Israel is almost entirely absent from American MSM and extremely tempered in Europe. In the case of the latter, a modicum of criticism is tolerated as a sop to the large and growing Muslim populations.

          The left is, and always has been, a Jewish stronghold, everywhere.

          • pterodactyl
            pterodactyl says:

            Trenchant & Ludwig – In Britain on the MSM news or in a any documentary whenever the Israel-Arab land dispute comes up it is always presented as the downtrodden and poor arabs vs the privileged and wealthy bullies in Israel – arab children with stones vs Israeli soldiers with weapons. The left simply always identify with the more primitive and backward group in any struggle. It is their inner instincts, and not a tgought-out strategy. They never consider the bigger picture of how a more powerful Israel is actually good for the left in that a stronger Israel can cause even more trouble for white nations if they are not distracted by their own local wars.
            The Right do not like the way the Js are trying to harm Western nations, so they side with the arabs in the Israel-arab dispute, but this is a big mistake in my opinion as all it does is alienate the ‘Far Right’ in the eyes of the ‘Right’ normies, as they view the Far Right as completely wrong to support the backward hostile mslm tribes, who are completely despised by the normie-Right.

            Trenchant – I doubt that there has ever been shown a map even on US TV that showed the relative sizes of Israel and the surrounding arab lands, together with population densities and oil reserves, and then the suggestion made that the arabs already have more than their fair share of land and resources in the region. This would be giving the Israelis side.

            Ludwig – they do not usually concede an inch if they can help it, although they will join in the Right’s patriotic causes as a means to join (infiltrate?although some are genuine) the right so they can control the narrative in terms of preventing the Js getting the finger pointed at them (Breitbart, and sponsoring establishment rebels Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins in Britain)
            – But I accept your Weinstein explanation

        • Ludwig
          Ludwig says:

          pterodactyl says:
          October 20, 2020 at 9:19 am
          “So how do you explain the negative portrayal of Israel in the MSM as regards the Israel vs arabs land dispute?”

          Of course they can’t control the entire narrative, nor do they want to, that would remove their ‘plausible deniability’ card or their chameleon tactic. Somethings get through now and again and other are let though but that’s certainly not making any difference to their expansion. Nor has it prevented them from harnessing the west’s military to balkanise the middle east for their future aims.

          ” Also, the prominent Jewish director Harvey Weinstein – a key top player for them but even their influence in the legal system and the film industry could not keep him in that job of top influence and power.”

          That’s an easy one to explain. They sacrificed one of their own to save the rest of themselves.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          “I doubt that there has ever been shown a map even on US TV that showed the relative sizes of Israel and the surrounding arab lands, together with population densities and oil reserves, and then the suggestion made that the arabs already have more than their fair share of land and resources in the region. This would be giving the Israelis side.”

          National borders aren’t drawn up with a mind to universal egalitarian notions. Original appropriation is the convention.

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      My observations lead me to believe that the Left is composed of: 1) race/ethnic aliens: and 2) abnormal whites who are outcasts from normal society. If I ever meet a ‘normal’ white Leftist, I’ll have to revise my conclusion.

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        Jacobite – as for (1) eg Africans or Iraqis or Pakistanis etc, it is not really their fault that they are now in the West in large numbers and soon to outnumber us – it is not as if they organised an invasion force and we were not strong enough to resist. No, we the strong, invited them, the weak, to come and invade us and all they did was accept the invitation as we lured them over with offers of money and our houses.

        We invited racist races over to join us. But I cannot criticise them for being racist and sticking together in their racist groups and favouring their own, as that is their nature, and if we had a bit more of the same nature oursevles we could now defend ourselves from what is coming. As K MacDonald argues in his latest book, we need to make self-defence of our race culturally acceptable, even if this is ‘racism’. In my view this will only come when whites are out of the ‘Weimar Republic stage’ and enter the next stage that comes with proper hardship including starvation.

        As for ‘abnormal whites’ I agree again that in their heads, all the real left think in an abnormal way and do not have normal morals, just politics, although many are socially successful and are judges, film producers and film stars.

        The respectable and cool and personable presenter who is genuine left has the same way of thinking as the ‘Refugees Welcome’ demonstrators, but the difference is that the demonstrators are unsubtle and reveal their true natures including their hatred of their own people, whereas the cool and suave and likeable TV presenter who slants the TV coverage in their favour, he thinks the same way as the demonstrators, and is just as anti-white, but he is more subtle and is adept at hiding his true nature and presenting himself as a normal person.

        As for another group of lefties – young graduates for example – they are not genuine and are just products of the culture/education system and their anti-white views would easily and quickly change if the culture did, unlike the real left whose natures cannot change as their hostility is genetic – they hate the superior and that is all, even if they themselves are wealthy and successful, and are liked and popular and their own white race has always been good to them their whole lives – ie there is no event to trigger the animosity, they are not hard done by nor do they have any grievance or reason to hate their own race, the whites – it is just in their makeup from their genes.

        • Jacobite
          Jacobite says:

          Yes, some abnormal whites have mental illnesses. Others are criminals, crippled/deformed, militant atheists, uglo-Americans, sexual perverts, and just plain eight-balls who can’t get along with anybody (i.e., Madeline Murray-O’Hare). Anything that puts them outside of normal society. Social ostracism is humiliating — I can understand why they want to destroy it.

  18. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “The Weimar Republic, for example, had a wide range of speech laws at least commensurate with those found in modern Europe, and more extensive than anything found in contemporary America. Anti-Semitic speech was prosecuted very regularly,[4]”

    I had no idea about this, as the elite’s message is that the anti-Semitism of the Germans was without any provocation. I wonder if this is ever mentioned in school history syllabuses when discussing the causes of anti-antisemitism?

  19. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Jews could preserve their unique identity within the framework of a future multicultural society — a combination he felt would ensure Jewish safety and continuity in Europe.”

    Re the motive to ‘ensure Jewish safety’.

    Maybe Js who feel hostile to their benevolent white host country like to explain to themselves that their motive for being anti-white is self-interest (‘to avoid another H’), but when it comes to human behaviour, maybe for most ppl logic is not accessible and their main mode of thinking is instinctive, just as with cats and dogs. Logic is only accessible to a few. There are many examples of ppl acting against their own interests in everyday life. Divorcing couples are one example a person will knowingly harm themselves financially purely in order to harm the other party and with no gain for themselves, as they know the cake for dividing between them will disappear in legal fees. Another example of instincts overriding logic is the case of the Welsh and Scots and Irish hating the English – they know they feel antagonistic and so they try and work out how to justify their feelings to themselves and others by delving back into their history and seeking out wrongs against their ancestors. but it has no basis in logic, especially today, as England is their benefactor, and yet still it persists. It exists most strongly in, say, the pubs in Glasgow, where they never even try to apply logic or assign any value to logical thinking and despise education. The types who despise learning in these pubs the most are also the most anti-English of all, so this racial hostility arises from animal-behaviour instincts and is not strategic or thought out or logic based.

    In this context we do not need to seek out any self-interest explanations when we observe some Js trying to bring down the West and make it multicultural, and we do not need to accept the explanations offered by the likes of Yarvin.

    Many Js on Twitter and Breitbart clearly exhibit a very strong animosity to the white race, and this is far greater than one that is based merely on a worked out strategy ‘to prevent another Holocaust’. They explain their hatred to themselves by telling themselves the H is the reason for their hatred, or if not that it is something else that happened 2000 years ago, but this is merely them seeking out a motive to justify their hostility to themselves. Even the drunk who wants a fight in a pub never says ‘I will hit you for no reason’, no, he says ‘why did you look at me in that way?’ – to give himself a justification and motive where in fact there is none.

    All the hatred clearly on display by the Js on Twitter and Breitbart towards whites, Js who are in no way part of the wealthy elite, this anti-w hatred from the ‘little ppl’ amongst the Js who will never get any money or power from their hatred, such hatred is clearly so deeply felt that it cannot be explained by them merely following some kind of plan or strategy carefully thought out by intellectuals. The hatred comes from somewhere deep, but not from logic.

    The same applies to the non-Jewish ‘little people’ on Twitter etc who are on the left and who clearly cannot have power or money as their motive, as they are nobodies – clearly they feel very intense hostility to whites (their own race), a hostility so intense and so driving that it cannot be explained just by their listening to their teachers and the MSM and then seeking to conform with the dominant culture.

    The only way the w race can have peace is to induce all those with poison genes that make them against us – both whites and Js – to live elsewhere, and they should be grateful that that is the only price they have to pay for all their treachery and mischief and harm to those who reach out the hand of friendship to them.

  20. Arnar
    Arnar says:

    The main reservation I have with anti-semitism, which Moldbug also made, is that of anti-zionist jews. Even the most jewish jews, like Judith Butler, who advocates pedophilia, incest and public spaces of sexual exchange, has voiced her support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Certainly jews lie about their positions sometimes. Like the ADL saying it is opposed to Israel seizing more land from the Palestinians, while secretly working to annex the west bank. Is this one of those cases? I doubt it. Is it because zionism is not good for the jews? If you or someone has written on this please link me to it

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Arnar – Melanie Philips is a British Jew/intellectual on the Right who writes for newspapers and is on TV. She bemoans the lefty Jews in Israel who also feel drawn to the ‘lower type’ side in the arab-Jew land dispute, ie the other side to themselves, the arab side. She appeared with Peter Whittle I think formerly of UKIP on Youtube in his youtube show, maybe a couple of months ago. She cannot understand why lefty Js in Israel support the arabs. I do not think she is a person of malice and I am not sure why she is so tolerated by the MSM as she makes a lot of sense, although she was sacked from her job writing for he ‘Spectator’ – maybe she was just not against the West as much as they wanted. I will give a link if i find one.

  21. Chabad Intelligence Agency
    Chabad Intelligence Agency says:


    Can we get this on The Unz Review? Would love to see that comment sections opinion on this piece.

  22. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    Fine article. The Jews truly are a font of indefatigable sophistry: a mountain of evidence condemns them, and what does Yarvin do ? He attacks the evidential standard itself ! Perhaps that was the best of the options since he cannot abandon his cause any more than his genotype. No doubt Yarvin is a firm believer in bigfoot and UFO’s given the paucity of evidence for them.

  23. Hanseatic Logan
    Hanseatic Logan says:

    When I looked at Moldbug’s blog years ago to see what all the fuss was about, I quickly decided he was a dishonest gasbag who took far too long to say far too little. “The Cathedral” is classic misdirection. “The Synagogue” is the honest term. When Moldbug turned up once at Greg Cochran’s blog, the exchange went like this:

    Mencius Moldbug says:

    Exclusive homosexuality is a risk of feminization (ie, pussification) – not a determined outcome. You can see this from the twin concordance rates if nothing else.

    Your standards for “high male aggression” are modern and civilized – ie, low. Ever heard of the Yanomamo?

    gcochran9 says:

    I’ve seen you say many things in a number of forums, and I’ve never seen you make a lick of sense. This is your chance to do something different. Exercise it.

    And that was all from Moldbug.

  24. Achilles Wannabe
    Achilles Wannabe says:

    I have no doubt that while the Cathedral is NOW actually a Synagogue, this can’t always have been so. Somehow the Jews took over from the “super-Protestants” or WASP’s. And if, as Dr Joyce says, the fin de siecle WASP ruling class had “direct clashes of interest with the Jewish interest” in “controlling the demographic make up of the country” how is it that the “super protestants” let in a couple of million Ashkenazi Jews between 1880 and 1920?

    There has long been an argument that Puritanism is Judaism for Angloes. Could it be that rather than the Jews being Mold Bug’s WASP wannabees, the WASP was a Jewwannabe?

    • Junghans
      Junghans says:

      Good point, A.W. !
      The Anglo establishment must have been drunk on their own witche’s brew, or asleep at the switch. Due diligence was obviously lacking then, and still is

    • TITUS
      TITUS says:

      Most protestants are wannabe jews, E.M.Jones likes to repeat this often.

      I have attended some Jahovah’s Witness meetings and studied their particular version of the bible with them and can attest that they are pretty much wannabe jews. They copy them in almost everything except in their ethnic particularism, which is one of the strongest points of the jews and probably the key to their success in the diaspora.

      They undermine the host nation by making converts and forcing said converts into marathonian proselitizing endeavours. In my country the Catholic Church is the mainstream religion and they often ridicule it in several ways, in private meetings of course.
      They often favour the mozlem invaders since they themselves are a “minority” after all, a non ethnic minority and hence a very weak one.
      They aren’t supposed to acquire higher education and in fact as little education as possible, banning everything that contradicts the bible, and despite having codes for entertainment and whatnot, they are completely immersed in their daily lives in everyday news and preach all the mainstream mantras, from climate change to anti-racism, they only seem to be a bit apprehensive about sodomites, but how much and for how long is hard to tell.
      Their whole life revolves around proselitizing to the point of neglecting having kids or a decent job. The european JW’s don’t seem to be having replacement numbers of kids and most of the new proselites are third worlders, so i don’t expect them to become anything meaningful, unlike for example, the amish.
      Just like the Catholic Church has done, they abolished the cross, an ancient aryan simbol, and put a lot of emphasis in Jesus having been nailed to a log of wood, not a cross, i guess in order to not displease the jews.
      The relation with the jews is typical of the schizophrenic christian, the holocaust is a real thing, the JWs got holocausted too after all, they worship ancient/imaginary jews, yet the jews killed Christ. I really don’t understand how this bullshit has been going on for 2000 years.

      It works pretty much like a company specialized in making proselites, and they align in everything with jews. I don’t think they will ever get the human capital to become anything else. And they should be regarded as a fifth column and a plague in any christian country.

  25. Curt Doolittle
    Curt Doolittle says:

    Pretty good.

    But no, Yarvin is using the Jewish technique of pilpul and critique, which is also why he writes in long-form, absent analytic, operational, or empirical arguments.

    Both sexes transfer a cognitive bias, all genes transfer a cognitive bias, all cultures transfer a competitive (evolutionary) group strategy, a mythology (Narrative), a metaphysics(set of value presumptions within), a set of rituals or norms to perpetuate it, and an argumentative bias to advance it.

    (Something anyone who has read Goldberg’s Jews and the State, Todd’s Invention of Europe, or Fischer’s Albion’s Seed will be familiar with).

    So “Argumentative Forensics” are rather simple. And yes, the spread of the Jewish (Abrahamic) method of communication, approval-disapproval as a substitute for truth and falsehood, their use of false promise of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws, their use of pilpul(sophistry) and critique (undermining), social construction (saturation, polluting the informational commons), and their escape into plausible deniability, avoidance of warranty and liability, and their failure to put forth equally criticizable solutions – that would be rejected, are rapidly identifiable when taught (we teach it), and excruciatingly and predictably consistent.

    Why? It’s the female strategy of undermining dominant males (Europeans) and depriving them of the ability to form Pareto hierarchies (advanced civilizations), for the same reason females seek to maintain dominance and influence over children throughout their lives. Unfortunately, xianity, manufactured by paulians, is constructed just as Judaism and Islam, upon this method of deception that destroys rational cognition: the principle innovation of european peoples. … but that’s enough on that for now.

    1) Yarvin argues using the Abrahamic method of deceit (indirection by undermining using pilpul, suggestion, critique).
    2) His proposed solution perpetuates the Jewish method of organization.
    3) The Protestant evangelical anti-church, anti-state, the puritanical new England female tactics of liberating the slaves as the first incremental step in gaining the franchise differ from the Jewish strategy of continuous undermining thereby preventing Pareto hierarchies, their own inability to organize such hierarchies at scale (universal among middle easterners), their continuous undermining of Aryan->Roman->Germanic->Anglo military hierarchy, rule of law, and markets, and worst of all, their enlightenment ‘reformation’ merely transformed their group strategy mythology and argument from supernatural sophistry, false promise and deceit, to pseudoscientific sophistry false promise, and deceit.

    How to tell the difference between a european and non? When Europeans speak in public, whether court, church, council, or oratory, we TESTIFY. “Truth before face regardless of cost”. Under realism, naturalism, and empiricism (rules of evidence). And ALL other peoples on this earth tell stories, justify, put face before truth, endemically lie, or deny. The Abrahamic method like all middle eastern methods finds heroism cunning and reward in deceit. It is a group strategy of deceit, from civilization that practices deceit as heroic, that began its organization with priests using deceit. and that built myths, metaphysics, rituals, and methods of argument by those methods of deceit. This is why, as Fukuyama and H demonstrate so thoroughly, that they have never been able to form a post bronze age government that wasn’t run by Persians, Europeans or Turks. And why the Jews couldn’t hold a homeland: the inability to build scale organaizatoins created incentives to specialize in undermining those that could.

    Truth: Testimony, is what made european excellence possible. Not xianity, not philosophy, but entrepreneurial warriors developed rule of law as the first institution, and there are only three principal institutions a civilization can develop because there are only three principal means of coercing humans. 1) Female: Ostracization/Religion/SupernaturalAuthority, 2) Established male: Threat(risk)/State/CommandsAuthority, 3) Ascendant male: Exchange(opportunity)/Law/Rules: commensurability with physical natural, an evolutionary laws.

    Yarvin practices Jewish critique, puts forth a jewish group strategy, and defense himself with pilpul and critique.

    The solution to our age is very simple: organize sufficient force to extend criminal law of defamation, deception, and fraud, to deprive EVERYONE of the permissiveness of using the Abrahamic (Jewish, Semitic) method of deceit in public, to the public, in matters public. This would immediately begin the cleansing of the state, the academy, the media, and the financial sector.

    Profiting from suppressing the left would immediately become the same scale of industry as today’s left profits from undermining truth, reciprocity, rule of law, self-determination, and the gifts to the world that european civilization has uniquely provided – despite hating us for it.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      ” “Truth before face regardless of cost”. Under realism, naturalism, and empiricism (rules of evidence). And ALL other peoples on this earth tell stories, justify, put face before truth, endemically lie, or deny.”

      Very accurate and good summary. I have worked closely with other races and my observation confirms the above. They are not straightforward either with whites or with each other.

      An example is that they tell massive and obvious lies and cheat without any shame, even if you know they are lying or cheating and they know you know. But then if they are *accused of* lying/cheating they get highly offended, as you have insulted their ‘honour’, whatever that is – we do not really know as white ppl do not have this extra mode of thinking that replaces our straightforwardness. The other races do not think that confession and saying sorry about doing wrong to others is a worthy thing to do, unlike in Western culture. We think the actual truth has value, and the way we treat others matters, but they do not. They do not care if you know they are lying, they only care if you point it out, as the lie does not count, only the admission of the lie or the confession of the lie is the significant event.

      Perhaps this is why the Christian religion with its emphasis on right and wrong and confession and valuing honesty was readily adopted by the West whereas Islam suits those who do not value the truth. How often in the Koran does it tell ppl to be good? When Africans practise Christianity the ‘do unto others as you would be done by’ does not have much emphasis, and it is more ‘join God’s tribe and good things will come to you in return’.

      “today’s left profits from undermining truth,”
      – correct, the left do not value truth, they only talk as if they do because they live in a society that does value truth. They use the word ‘compassion’ a lot, but they use it falsely – eg they professed great compassion for blacks under white rule in S.Africa and feigned anguish at their ‘suffering’, but all along they knew that under the black rule that they were helping to bring about, they knew all along that this would come with bad things for the blacks: unemployment, crime and tribal warfare, and yet this did not make them hesitate for a moment in their obsession to end white rule in S Africa. So the white left had no real compassion for blacks, only a hatred of whites.

      The white left only have one principle and everything they think and do stems from it – namely that if ‘a’ is better than ‘b’ – ‘a’ being more civilised, ‘higher’, then they feel antagonistic/hateful towards ‘a’ and want to give ‘b’ power over ‘a’. This urge governs everything they do. This is why it is erroneous for the Right to talk of whites as if we are all the same, we are not as our left are poison within our populations with their bad genes of hatred of the superior.

  26. ten
    ten says:

    I have for a long time roughly held the same view as Yarvin on jews.

    Since you dismiss the entirety of the content of his argument “the five tests of belief system classification”, i will do likewise.

    The kernel of progressivism lay in the american puritans, wanting to immantize the eschaton, and being neither jew nor greek in christ. They were perfectly fine with voting themselves to other peoples stuff, they had sex cults, they emancipated their women. They were thouroughly anti national, and even though they for a short while had the base sense to retain consciousness of racial reality, they shed this contact with reality at first opportunity, like they shed every other contact with reality at first opportunity.

    They also had a raging hard on for jews from the beginning, and were thoroughly delighted to recruit them into their mission, which mission is the breach of all earthly bonds, to unfetter the devil.

    That mission was in full force in america before the jews joined it, thus the jews are not the cause of it. Looks to me like the jews, just like yarvin says, are converts to progressivism, and that progressive jews do not have jewish grandkids, thus it is fully deleterious towards jews.

    The jews inserted many anti-gentile programs into progressivism and coloured it with their own pathologies, and it certainly grew both new and nastier tentacles, but you seem to completely ignore yarvins position, that i share completely, that the monster was already there, and it just recruited minions certain to be hostile to the legitimate order, and enthusiastically joined in with their new psycho-talmudic social programs.

    Macdonald, who i actually have read, also seems to think everything was fine before jews, while yarvin (and i agree) thinks we were totally fucked well before the jews.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Yeah, Dr Joyce says there is no evidence that the Jews were drawn to the Brahman class. I can believe
      that but then I wonder if the Brahman class wasn’t
      in some way drawn to the Jews. Perhaps one of our Occidental scholars ought to explain how/why millions of eastern European Jews got into this country when super protestants ran it.

  27. katana
    katana says:

    Andrew Joyce, as is his talent, demonstrates an ability to cut through the deceitful camouflage of orgjew apologia, and shine a light on their anti-White agenda.

    Anti-semitism is a natural and rational conclusion for Whites once they understand that orgjew is out to destroy them.

    Jews are systematically destroying us, all the while gaslighting, deflecting us with everything that leads us away from them.

    BTW, great to hear that Joyce is finally coming out with his book!

    I would urge him, though, to continue with his fascinating podcasts.


    Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

Comments are closed.